Iran Attacks Israel: What are the implications for both nations and where does India stand? 

The Iranian action was a serious escalation no matter how we look at it.

Did the world change while we were sleeping? As a nervous region crosses its fingers fearing a wider war, the implications of a direct Iran-Israel confrontation could be too terrible to contemplate.

Iran carried out a widely anticipated attack on Israel on Saturday night, unprecedented in audacity, scope and reach. It was the first direct hit on Israel itself, reserving only minor roles for its proxies. It was coming, we all knew, since two weeks ago, when Israeli forces attacked an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, killing seven senior IRGC officers, including two commanders Mohammad Reza Zahedi and Brig. Gen. Mohammad Hadi Haj Rahimi. The Israeli strike violated international law.

Iran promised terrible retaliation and certainly the numbers — 185 kamikaze drones, 110 ballistic missiles and 36 cruise missiles that rained down on Israel — were fearsome.

It’s a tribute to Israel’s equally formidable defence systems that only seven ballistic missiles went through causing some damage, the rest being shot down by Israel, US and UK and Jordan. Some damage was sustained at the Nevatim air base, which made Iran happy — damage to the Nevatim air base, according to an official Iranian statement was revenge for the fact that aircraft from this base were used in the attack in Damascus. The damage was low also because Iran had telegraphed its intentions well in advance allowing Israel to build up its defences, and the US to move its defences to the region.

Iranian army chief, Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri was quoted as saying on Sunday, "The operation is over from our point of view, but the armed forces are ready and we will act if necessary,” warning of a “stronger” reaction if Israel responds. The UN Security Council and the G-7 are expected to put “diplomatic” pressure on Iran and Israel to desist from taking the path of permanent retaliation.

Meanwhile, the region is on edge. India is feeling hemmed in -- foreign minister Dr S Jaishankar rang his counterparts in Tehran and Tel Aviv to counsel restraint. Nobody is sure who is listening.

What Is Iran’s Endgame?

Iran’s strike appeared calibrated to avert an escalation -- two weeks notice, slow drones and a swift announcement of the conclusion of operations. In any other theatre, this would be followed by diplomatic efforts to contain the damage.

The Iranian action was a serious escalation no matter how we look at it. Its proxies, the so-called Axis of Resistance did their bit — Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets into the Golan heights, Houthis posted celebratory videos, there are reports that the Iran-supported Islamic Resistance in Iraq may have helped in some unspecified way, and the Badr Organization celebrated the attack. More details will emerge later but it seems that for the moment at least, Iran’s proxy forces are enthusiastic participants in this war.

For Iran, the attacks achieved a few things.

This was the first time they were responding to repeated acts by Israel targeting their military leaders in different countries. Israel and the west has operated on the assumption that Iran would not respond directly to Israel. That has been shattered. The premier enemies of the region are directly confronting each other.

Iran’s problem is not only Israel, it is a serious question of its ability to manage its security. Iran has been battered by a series of security crises, many originating from outside its borders.

For instance, a serious escalation of the conflict between Iran and the Jaish al Adl, a Baloch jihadi group followed the Damascus strike by Israel. On April 4, a 17-hour battle between the IRGC and Jaish terrorists in the Iranian Sistan-Balochistan province and Chahbahar killed at least 11 IRGC personnel. Iran has previously launched cross-border attacks into Pakistan for allegedly harbouring Jaish-al-Adl in Pakistan Balochistan. In response, Pakistan launched its counter-strike inside Iran, which surprised Iran, but nobody else. Although both Iran and Pakistan cried truce, the tension remains.

ISIS has been active in Iran as well and was responsible for killing at least 100 people in a bombing attack in January 2024. Just last week, Iran arrested ISIS operatives planning attacks during Eid.

Second, Iran has made the current conflict into an Iran-Israel war, with Gaza as a sideshow. That’s not good for Palestinians, who can now expect an Israeli doubling down on a Rafah invasion. It’s not good for Iran -- in any state of formal conflict with the West and Israel (and the Sunni Arab world), Iran would be the clear loser, even vulnerable to a degrading strike on its nuclear infrastructure. Iran’s economy is unlikely to take a sustained assault.

Third, the Sunni Arab world led by Saudi Arabia would not want to see a more powerful Iran emerge from this exchange. They are likely to work harder both to contain and deter Iran, with the help of the US. And Israel. The ostensible reason for Iranian-backed Hamas launching its terror attacks in Israel on October 7 was to stop Israel’s normalisation with the Arabs, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s actions are likely to bring these powers closer together for a common goal against Iran.

Fourth, Iran’s proxies are now fair game. Even if Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu obeys US strictures to not engage in revenge attacks, unlikely though that might be, there will be little restraint on them regarding the proxies. Israel’s actions in Gaza and in West Bank are likely to intensify in the coming weeks.

Implications for Israel

For Israel, the Iranian attack means very different things. First, Israel had gone for a long time targeting Iranian leaders without fear of retaliation. Now they have it, and this will inevitably colour their future actions. If nothing else, Israeli planners would have to factor in possible Iranian retaliation. This time, the missiles used weren’t the top-end stuff. Any future Iranian attack could easily be more deadly, if Iran decided to up its game.

Second, Netanyahu is in a stronger position having successfully fended off a huge Iranian attack. Until now, his political survival depended on the war continuing. His political survival is less threatened. Israeli politics is likely to remain unstable for a long time.

Third, now that Iran has outed itself as the principal enemy, the US, Europe and the Arabs will be by Israel’s side. This means there will not only be greater pressure on Iran’s nuclear development, efforts to degrade Iran’s military capabilities are likely to increase.

Fourth, Israel will respond. There is no question on that. Unnamed Israeli officials have already promised this, despite the Biden administration’s assertion that the US would play no part in any Israeli “offensive” operations against Iran. The question is when, and how. Unlike a more forgiving South Asia, the concept of “the other cheek” doesn’t actually exist in West Asia. Neither Israel nor its silent “friends” would want Iran to have the last word in this conflict.

India Boxed into a Corner

At the geostrategic level, Iran is now a big part of the new axis — China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (with cameo appearances by Turkey and Qatar on occasion). If there is Russian and Chinese assistance to Iran against Israel, it may sharpen the current global divide. At that point, all bets would be off. That would have serious implications for India.
For India, this would be very uncomfortable. As it is, Iranian authorities seized a Portuguese-flagged, Israel-linked ship, MSC Aries, in the straits of Hormuz. The ship was heading from the UAE to India, manned by Indian crew. The Modi government will have to push considerable diplomatic capital to free the seamen. This also means that India can no longer take the distance view of a conflict in West Asia. This is uncomfortably close to home. The October 7 attacks by Hamas have already put paid to India’s grand plan of an economic corridor between India and Europe via the Middle East, forcing New Delhi to temper its enthusiasm with an initial agreement with UAE.

This conflict has the potential to spread, both by accident and by design. India, and China, have called for ending hostilities and return to dialogue. The US has no locus standi to play an honest broker, neither does anyone else. Escalation is naturally built into this conflict. Somebody has to stand down. Neither side will.

(Indrani Bagchi is CEO, Ananta Centre.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.